View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 1:43 pm ::: Brutal in Bristol today |
Reply |
|
Bloodbath.
http://deadspin.com/a-running-list-of-espn-layoffs-1794664091
Haven't seen the names of any WBB personalities yet.
Some of these tweets remind you that these are real people whose lives are being disrupted.
@dannykanell
Poured my heart and soul into ESPN for last 8 years. Moved my wife and 3 kids to CT to go "all in" 5 years ago. Bummed it ended in 3 minutes
Or this classic. Oops.
Mike L. Goodman @TheM_L_G
Today's gonna suck for a lot of people at ESPN. It doesn't seem like too much to ask to remember that those people are in fact people.
And a while later comes....
Mike L. Goodman @TheM_L_G
And hey, it turns out one of those people is me. Loved my time at ESPN, and now it's time to figure out what's next.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 1:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ESPN seems to be crumbling. Other sports networks are just ahead of them right now. I'd assume most of those layed-off will find work shortly.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
What other sports network is "ahead of them" or even close? None that I know of.
They're caught between a rock and a hard place of really expensive rights deal costs, and really high profit demands from Disney.
The one thing they can most quickly and easily cut is personnel costs.
So this afternoon, for example, the Russilo and Kenell show is filled with two nameless drones who probably work for minimum wage while the more costly names on the logo are unemployed.
|
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 Posts: 6191 Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 2:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Quote: |
NBA Injury Report @NBAInjuryR3port
Report: ESPN (employs Stephen A. Smith) has laid off 100+ employees. |
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 2:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ESPN had a ton of income from cable subscribers who didn't watch them. Once the cord cutting started, the Worldwide Leader was bound to suffer.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12606 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 2:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
wonder if Kara or Rebecca are watching the wire hoping there names dont come up ? Id be suprised to see the newest addition LaChina Or Rucco
_________________ 3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 2:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
LaChina's likely on a minimum salary. Ruocco is their basketball go to guy. He works NBA, WNBA, & college games. I doubt either one are gone.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12606 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 2:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
And yet I am sure they will continue to employ the shitshow that is Stephen A. Smith.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012 Posts: 4076
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 3:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
And yet I am sure they will continue to employ the shitshow that is Stephen A. Smith. |
Ratings.
Obviously they aren't sticking with him based on talent.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3359
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 3:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
toad455 wrote: |
WNBA 09 wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
What other sports network is "ahead of them" or even close? None that I know of.
. |
Fox :idea: |
FOX is ahead, easily. Better coverage, regional channels, better reporting. |
Ratings don't appear to reflect the notion that FOX is "easily" ahead of ESPN. And regional channels and coverage only matter if you actually care about the teams in your region. If you are, say, a transplant who refuses to assimilate, regional coverage is essentially worthless. Now, if you wanted to make the argument that, like, NFL Network and MLB Network and Golf Channel, etc. are ahead of ESPN, I may be forced to take your word for it: I don't watch those networks, because none of those sports are relevant to my interests. But Fox? Fox is trash.
@plight got it in one: ESPN benefited greatly from cable subscribers who were paying for channels that they didn't watch. What has always annoyed me about this whole thing is how cable cutting always seems to be spun into a narrative of "ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers," but not "MTV is hemorrhaging subscribers," or "ABC Family" is hemorrhaging subscribers."
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
StevenHW
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 10983 Location: Sacramento, California
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 3:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Some other remaining ESPN on-air personalities are being reassigned or getting lesser workloads. I wonder if this could be the reason why Doris Burke is not going to cover women's b-ball anymore.
_________________ "The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|
Nerd2
Joined: 06 Jun 2010 Posts: 7659
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 3:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The Internet changed how people get their information. I used to sit through a whole hour of Sportscenter to get the scores and highlights. But since they often chose to focus on features before scores, I started going to their web instead for the info I wanted. The people who still watch TV want personalities and not on-air reporters. What will remain is the actual sporting events and the talking head shows that still bring in viewers. A lot of the folks let go were also the ones I read a lot of on twitter and on the website but that doesn't bring in revenue. Might as well hire cheaper reporters to do the best they can since ESPN doesn't make as much money from getting at the truth as they do in other ways.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3359
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Nerd2 wrote: |
The Internet changed how people get their information. I used to sit through a whole hour of Sportscenter to get the scores and highlights. But since they often chose to focus on features before scores, I started going to their web instead for the info I wanted. The people who still watch TV want personalities and not on-air reporters. |
Speaking only for myself, this is also one hundred percent true. If I want scores and highlights (and I usually don't; I generally watch the games I care about, and there's rarely a case where there are two such games happening at the same time), I can hit the ESPN app on my phone, and have them in seconds. I watch/listen to ESPN because of the personalities.
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 4:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Silky Johnson wrote: |
@plight got it in one: ESPN benefited greatly from cable subscribers who were paying for channels that they didn't watch. What has always annoyed me about this whole thing is how cable cutting always seems to be spun into a narrative of "ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers," but not "MTV is hemorrhaging subscribers," or "ABC Family" is hemorrhaging subscribers." |
ESPN was charging providers more than any other cable network, so they're hurt worse.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24407 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 4:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The extra-sad thing is that, as that Deadspin article mentioned, most of this is pretty pointless and unnecessary. Compared to the gazillions they've spent on rights fees for major sports, and the millions being haemorraged in lost subscribers, the salary for an Ethan Sherwood Strauss or a Jayson Stark is an absolute drop in the ocean. I already use their website a lot less than I used to, but if you're going to excise the few decent writers and story-breakers you had left, I'm going to visit even less frequently.
And the newer competitors really haven't gone past them. Lots of the Fox shows have ratings so low that they're officially 'zero'. It's the changing landscape of how people consume that's hurting them far more than other people trying to do what ESPN does. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3359
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 5:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Silky Johnson wrote: |
@plight got it in one: ESPN benefited greatly from cable subscribers who were paying for channels that they didn't watch. What has always annoyed me about this whole thing is how cable cutting always seems to be spun into a narrative of "ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers," but not "MTV is hemorrhaging subscribers," or "ABC Family" is hemorrhaging subscribers." |
ESPN was charging providers more than any other cable network, so they're hurt worse. |
I don't know who your provider is, but I'm pretty sure that I don't have the ability to cancel ESPN by itself. I can't even remember the last time that I had the ability to cancel whatever package ESPN was on, and the only thing that I would have lost was ESPN channels (ain't there only, like, three?). I understand that ESPN was charging providers more money, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the number of subscribers? Like I said, ABC Family (or whatever they renamed it to) is on the same tier that ESPN is on, for me (and, at one point, MTV was, too), but nobody appears to want to spin it as how everybody is dropping ABC Family.
But, trying to get back on brand, so to speak, was anyone who covers the WNBA for the network cut loose?
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 5:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Silky Johnson wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
Silky Johnson wrote: |
@plight got it in one: ESPN benefited greatly from cable subscribers who were paying for channels that they didn't watch. What has always annoyed me about this whole thing is how cable cutting always seems to be spun into a narrative of "ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers," but not "MTV is hemorrhaging subscribers," or "ABC Family" is hemorrhaging subscribers." |
ESPN was charging providers more than any other cable network, so they're hurt worse. |
I don't know who your provider is, but I'm pretty sure that I don't have the ability to cancel ESPN by itself. I can't even remember the last time that I had the ability to cancel whatever package ESPN was on, and the only thing that I would have lost was ESPN channels (ain't there only, like, three?). I understand that ESPN was charging providers more money, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the number of subscribers? Like I said, ABC Family (or whatever they renamed it to) is on the same tier that ESPN is on, for me (and, at one point, MTV was, too), but nobody appears to want to spin it as how everybody is dropping ABC Family.
But, trying to get back on brand, so to speak, was anyone who covers the WNBA for the network cut loose? |
ESPN charges higher carriage fees, so they're losing more money than other networks. ESPN charges $7+ per subscriber. No other network charges more than $2, most are under 25¢.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Nerd2
Joined: 06 Jun 2010 Posts: 7659
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 5:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The way I consume ESPN now is that I watch it for sports events. I will not browse their web site because I find it too busy and hard to look at. I would tend to follow their reporters and analysts and it was their tweets that would pull me to the site for specific articles or to the TV for specific shows. It was free advertising. Wherever these people land will then become my source for online info. ESPN makes a ton of money per cable subscriber and cable companies probably have a deal with them so that they can't sell WatchESPN on demand. If people could purchase WatchESPN without a cable subscription, it would really accelerate the pace of cord-cutting. I personally have kept cable just for that and for the PAC-12 Network which I can't get any other way.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 14097
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 5:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Don't want anyone to lose jobs. But it's especially unfortunate when it's the journalistic types that are largely the first to go.
_________________ The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3359
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 6:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
ESPN charges higher carriage fees, so they're losing more money than other networks. ESPN charges $7+ per subscriber. No other network charges more than $2, most are under 25¢. |
What does that have to do with the question, "Why aren't people talking about how these other networks are losing subscribers, if they're losing the same number of subscribers"? I never questioned whether or not ESPN was losing more money than the other networks.
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Youth Coach
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 Posts: 4761
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
All these people let go and yet Stephen A. Smith is still there and they continue to broadcast SC6.
NFL.com / NFL Network is crazy if they don't hire Ed Werder. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/17 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Youth Coach wrote: |
All these people let go and yet Stephen A. Smith is still there and they continue to broadcast SC6.
NFL.com / NFL Network is crazy if they don't hire Ed Werder. |
SC6 and its ilk is a big part of what drove these layoffs. Read the NY Times coverage of the layoffs today. (It's very little about cord cutting)
There's going going to be a new talk show headed by MIke Greenberg as the morning "Sportscenter" too.
They're convinced people want "personalities" and "entertainment" and aren't interested in sports news or highlights. Get ready for more SC6-like shit.
|
|
|
|